Re: West Virginia creationism

Bob Casanova wrote:

On Fri, 12 Apr 2024 11:04:15 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Vincent Maycock
<maycock@gmail.com>:
 

On Fri, 12 Apr 2024 12:41:29 -0400, Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
>
<snip>

In the most cases where adaptations and minor evolutionary changes are
observed it's not because new information is added to DNA, but rather
there is a loss of information.
>
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-57694-8
>
Bad mutations seems to be the rule.

>
*Most* mutations are harmful, but to disprove evolution you need to
show that *all*  mutations are harmful -- those rare beneficial
mutations can be selected by and amplified through natural selection,
resulting in better-functioning organisms.
>

As I understand it, most mutations are neutral; the
beneficial and harmful ones are (approximately) equal in
number, and are far outnumbered by the neutral ones. But
don't expect your correspondent to accept any of that.

 >
I disagree. Beneficial mutations are rare, far more so than harmful ones. The evidence is that mental and physical diseases and defects resulting from defective genetics are far more often _observed_ than mental or physical betterment, enrichment or improvement we see resulting from beneficial mutations. You almost never observe any that can be attributed to beneficial mutations.
I would not be surprised if neutral mutations outstripped both the beneficial or the harmful ones. I would think though that any change in the coded information no matter how small would be a informational change that could over time gradually_add_up_ one way or the other, more likely than not, towards the degeneration.

>

The male sperm count is decreasing
with each generation. Each year new and previously unknown genetic
diseases are occurring just in humans. With the passing of time, there
is little doubt that our DNA, our genetics is become increasingly _less_
perfect. The Homo-sapiens species is believed to have arrived on the
scene 200,000 years ago, given the increases in genetic disorders we
observe today, it's highly _likely_ that the DNA of our early ancestors
were far closer to perfect that any of their decedents. Therefore, from
this evidence one can deduce that the proofreading and repair mechanisms
themselves are in a declining state with each generation becoming a bit
less perfect than the preceding generation. It's possible we saw this in
the extinction of Neanderthal species.
>
Beneficial mutations are rarely observed. The defective mutations are
overwhelming the beneficial mutations, as evidenced by the increasing
list of genetic disorders. Perhaps, this explains the 99% extinction
rate of all life forms that ever lived as observed or recorded in the
fossil record, as well as the numbers of the species become extinct
today. of course, human involvement accounts for some of this extinction
such as passenger pigeons, the dodo bird and the Tasmanian tiger. But to
your point the proofreading and repair systems are not perfect. But
without deliberate design how did the proofreading and repair systems
come about in the first place?

>
Obviously, because something that helps something replicate itself
better is going to leave more copies of itself in the gene pool .
>
>

  Of course there is educated, guesses,
suppositions, hypothesis and theories, but no one _knows_.

>
Do you consider your Intelligent Design argument to be an educated
guess, or a supposition?  And is there anything wrong with being a
hypothesis or theory?
>

question is where is the man holding hold Occam sword? Has he been
barred from entering this room of science?